DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Casino Royale (US - DVD R1)

Daniel Craig's James Bond is a kick to reviewer Gabe Powers' Thunderballs...

Feature

Bond, James Bond (played for the first time by Craig, Daniel Craig) has finally achieved Double 'O' status after killing a MI6 mole and his contact. On his first order of business he ends up killing a key witness and blowing up an embassy, which sticks him back into the dog house with M (Dame Judi Dench). But Bond isn't one to take leaves of absence, and continues his investigation, effectively getting himself involved in an elaborate scheme on the part of his majesty's secret service.

Being the best poker player with a Double 'O' in front of his name, Bond is required to defeat terrorist cell banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) at the Casino Royale tournament. If Bond succeeds, Le Chiffre will be forced into MI6 protection, and will give up the names and locations of his contacts. Bond's money girl is Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), a bright and beautiful young woman seemingly immune to his seductive charms.

If ever a franchise needed a facelift it was this one. The last two Bond films, The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day, were so brutally awful that they made me second guess all the films in the canon. The only franchise I can think of that was possibly in more dire straights was Warner Bros.' Batman series. The problem with Bond was that even these awful films managed to make money, whereas Batman and Robin ended up haemorrhaging cash. Had someone in charge of the franchise only returns on their production mind they may've driven these campy crap-fests into the ground.

Thankfully, someone had the good sense to realize that a really good movie could probably make more money than a really bad one. The other option is that perhaps they even, gasp, wanted to make a good movie. Bond's been rebooted more times than any other continuous franchise character (Dracula and Tarzan don't count because varying versions of the characters were usually unrelated films), this time marks the sixth, but this one really had to count for something.

It's become a bit of a cliché to darken and make previously campy characters more reality based lately, but sometimes it's called for, as was the case in Batman, and as is the case here. There had been attempts at darkening Bond in the past and getting him back to his original novel roots, but none had been entirely successful up to this point. Often 'dark' was simply confused with 'violent'. Watching the invisible car in Die Another Day I was reminded of my community college Psychology 101 class where my teacher used Bond as an example of a text book psychotic—a narcissus with a penchant for bloody violence, even murder, who enjoyed his without much emotion or restraint. It was just our luck that he was on our side. This was the Bond I wanted to see, and this 'melting ice palace' thing was insulting my intelligence.

When the recasting Pierce Brosnan came up my first choice, contrary to apparently everyone else (Clive Owen was a big favourite), was Eric Bana. Bana is easily one of the best and most underutilized actors working in Hollywood right now, and anyone who's seen Chopper knows how dark he can get. I had my heart set, but the second Daniel Craig's name was dropped I smacked myself on the forehead. ‘Of course!’, I exclaimed, having just seen Layer Cake. I don't blame any of the Bonds (Brosnan least of all) for their bad Bond movies, but this was the kind of left-field casting that could make for a classic.

And it did. Boy did it ever work. Craig made the character an original, not like any previous Bond, contrary to the Connery comparisons, but still maintained the character's most important traits. Though Craig was already established to a certain extent pre-Bond, he will go down with Brendan Routh as Superman, and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, as some of the best 'non-star' casting of a culturally embedded major character in modern history. This casting and subsequent film left me second guessing my 'psychotic' Bond premise, because despite his cool attitude, Craig's Bond is a three-dimensional character, with feelings and emotions thinly veiled in a rock hard shell. This is the real-world Bond, a secret agent that has emotions but refuses to wear them on his sleeves. I was wrong.

Some folks like the old, campy, womanizing, bullet-proof Bond, and that's cool. They've got twenty-some movies of that to enjoy. This is a Bond for people like me, who've seen all the Bond films but can't tell them apart in our head, beyond the handful of really great ones. Craig isn't the vicious Connery Bond, though he does beat a man nearly to death before the opening titles. Craig isn't the touchy-feely, glitz and glamour Lazenby Bond, though you'd have to be a pretty insensitive not to believe his love (one especially conservative film critic called him a metro-sexual for only having sex with two girls during the film). Craig isn't the campy, dapper, and fey Moore Bond, though he's not without a wry sense of humour. Craig isn't the cold and calculating Dalton Bond, though he has his wits about him, and by the end of Casino Royale the character may be going this way. Craig isn't even the cool, stone faced, clothing ad Brosnan Bond; he doesn't even want to wear a tux, even if he does look great in it. Craig is all of these Bonds and none of these Bonds at the same time.

The question this line of thinking leads to is a valid ‘why bother?’ Why make a real-life, dark, brooding, and emotional character, and then name him James Bond? Can't the people that want that kind of thing just watch the Jason Bourne movies? I'm not sure I have the answer to this question, but using the Bond brand name makes the film's good marks all the better. When a character named James Bond is fed a poisoned cocktail or has his testicles smashed with a thick chunk of rope it makes a point. It makes a hero vulnerable, and in effect does the same to an audience. I think it's a great idea, and it prevents the brand name from entering an equal plane with the Austin Powers series.

The films problems lie in the fact that sometimes it’s a little too obvious in its assurance of this new Bond. Had a lesser actor than Craig been required to say he didn't give a damn if his martini was shaken or stirred it could've sounded pretty trite. This 'self-awareness' doesn't work for the real world Bond, where people bleed when they're shot. It never derails the film, but threatens to every time it comes up.

It's also possible that the filmmakers haven't gone far enough. Casino Royale is a great film, especially when compared to Die Another Day, but image if it'd been the real opposite. Imagine a hard 'R' rated Bond, with cursing, more graphic bloodshed, and (Lord help us) nudity, in addition to turning its back on gadgets and fantasy excess. I don't think it's possible to go too far with a dark and realistic Bond myself. There is no line to be crossed, and I'd like to be taken to a place where the Sean Connery from From Russia with Love looks like a pussy.

The action is grand, and not the cartoony type seen in the franchises last few offerings. Director Martin Campbell, who will hopefully be around in another fifteen years when the series will need another reboot (he directed Goldeneye, you see, and not much else of note), does well for himself, and ups the anti without making the film look too ridiculous. The action rarely stops the film, and isn't gratuitous by any means—over-the-top, yes, but never gratuitous. The brutality of beating people to death is very real, the hits and falls are painful to watch, and the dangers of Bond's world seem very real. The first action sequence, a free running mini-epic, and easily the best directed and edited action scene of the year, possibly even the best on-film foot chase of all time.

Casino Royale's rustic charms didn't surprise me, but its unabashed romantic streak did. I expected a more realistic Bond, sure, and I expected his misogynist tendencies to be put in check even more than they was in the Brosnan era, but I didn't expect to believe he was falling in love. Bond and Vesper Lynd's introduction to each other on the train is the moment that sets this film apart from pretty much every Bond film ever made. The scene is snappy, clever, and doesn't pander to the audience.

‘How was your lamb?’ ‘Skewered...one sympathizes.’

This effortless display of screen entertainment is easily attributed to the acting prowess and chemistry of Craig and co-star Eva Green, but is also a testament to the film's epic length; it takes the time to tell its story.

This brings us briefly to the subject of length. I'm probably going to be the only person alive who'll praise the film's length in print, as it seems to be the most common complaint of the best reviewed major release of last year. This leisurely pacing and the multiple climaxes make for more realistic characters, and after a second viewing really seems the only logical way to tell the story of a young, realistic, and vulnerable Bond.

Casino Royale is at times such an effective retelling of such an old tale that I'm not 100% sure I want to see where it goes from here. This is a grand stand alone film; one that takes a character on a full arch, then puts him back where we remember him being. This will be the only James Bond film in my DVD collection, and in a way I think that's appropriate. This may be what turned the few people who didn't like the film off. This isn't meant to be a prequel, like Star Wars or Infernal Affairs II, this is a reboot. We're not filling in the back-story, we're building a new one here, and though the film ends as strong as any great film in recent memory, I'm not sure I care where this back-story will end up.

Video

Not unexpectedly, this is a good-looking disc. The film takes place in a variety of countries, and each location brings something new to the colour pallet. Colours are bright and impressively reproduced with the exception of some of the skin tones cloaked in shadow, which are a hair too green. Blacks are rich and deep, and are mostly noise free. Grain and noise is minimal overall, but not absent. Again, it is in the darker flesh tones that problems can be found. The details are very crisp, but I did notice some image doubling when white, on-screen text was present. There are also a few obvious instances of compression artefacts, but these are still pretty hard to single out.

Audio

Something a lot of you may notice about this R1 release is the lack of DTS. This will make some of you angry, and is the first of several clues to another, bigger release in the near future. Personally I can't see a full on DTS track being any better than this solid Dolby Digital track, but maybe I'm just nutty.

Anyway, the track is huge. Needless to say dialogue is clear and centred, and surround channels are effective. The LFE is punchy and never warbles. Sound effects whip from side to side and from front to back in high fidelity, there is no distortion, and spatially the track is never muddy. Explosions will rattle your couch without deafening you or destroying your speakers. Though Casino Royale is action packed, the track's music is what makes it most impressive. I'm happy the typically big and brassy score was utilized for this reboot, but I didn't like the cheesy Chris Cornell opener.

Extras

There's just no way that this is the last word on a Casino Royale DVD release. Perhaps Sony is assuming that Blu-ray will overtake the industry within the year and a full on, special edition DVD was a waste of their time. Either that or they wanted fans to buy more than one copy. Lord knows they'd never have done that with the original film releases.

The second disc extras consist of three twenty-five minute featurettes, all very obviously made for TV. In comparison with the original Special Edition releases of the older Bond films, these docs are kind of depressing and thin.

‘Becoming Bond’ is a look at the hiring process, that gets its teeth into all but one of the most important aspects of the post-Brosnan Bond search, we're never told who else was really up for the job. There were always rumours, but I want to know the facts of the case. The featurette even teases us further by stating plainly that three other actors were brought in for screen tests. That means that three other actors were honestly considered, not just rumoured. I'm sure there's some legal reason for this, and if I did a little net research I could find my answer, but I was left frustrated nonetheless. The doc acts also, briefly, as a behind the scenes of the script writing process and the building of the new character. The doc is all too self-important at times, basically letting its viewers know that the rebooting of Bond is the best thing since the erection of the pyramids.

‘James Bond: For Real’ looks strictly at the stunts and destruction of Casino Royale’s three key action sequences. I can't say I need to know anything else about the filming of these scenes, and even at a rather brief run-time this feature does its job well. When coupled with the ‘Becoming Bond’ featurette it makes for a good start to a really great full-length documentary, but the story ends here. The screen might as well say 'To Be Continued...on the Ultimate Edition DVD'.

I know for a fact that ‘Bond Girls Are Forever’ was made for TV because that's where I first saw it. Originally produced as a companion piece for Die Another Day this brief and fluffy look at the women of Bond's past is entertaining, and has been awkwardly updated for Casino Royale. The dichotomy of the Bond Girl and the modern Western World Woman is an interesting enough subject to fill the whole half-hour, and with the edition of the 'where are they now' angle, this could easily have been a feature length documentary. As it stands it's merely entertaining filler.

The disc is finished off with a series of Sony trailers, though noticeably not a single Bond release, and a music video for the noisy opening number. The Spider-Man 3 and Spider-Man 2.1 trailers are a good time though.

Overall

On my personal Bond scale, this one rates third, just behind Thunderball and From Russia with Love, and just ahead of Goldfinger. It really is leaps and bounds beyond my expectations, hopes, and dreams for the character. I'm assuming the follow up has to be a step down simply because the spot the character is put in by the end. This DVD screams 'double dip' from the highest rooftops, but will get you by with a solid A/V, and a few entertaining extras.

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

I love this review. I don't always agree with everything as stated, however for the most part it is exaclty how I felt about this movie.

This is a stand alone, all by itself good movie, the fact that it is rebooting (his name for it and it does fit) a pretty cool franchise is totally an extra for me.

I am a fan of most of the campy and not so campy Bond movies of the past, I own them all on DVD. However this is by far a better movie than most, if not all of those just based solely on the realism, I loved the fact that not everything was a gadget or that not every girl was swooped down and fell upon by a professional.

I had my doubts when I heard who was playing Bond in this new movie. Don't get me wrong, I think Craig has been solid in most 3everything he has ever done, but Bond was special or so I thought, to special for Craig.

I was wrong, way wrong. Craig is now my favorite Bond, real, tough and intelligent and in todays standards, not the 50's or 60's standards that all, even Brosnan's Bond held.

I feel as Gabriel does, this movie has done it, I do not know if another would or could add to the overall effect.

filmguy78 wrote: I'm in the minority here. I need to see more of Craig to truly assess if he is the "best" Bond.

Agreed. A little too much hype over him, I think. The guys great, but lets see what hes like two, three or four movies down the line.

Bradavon wrote: The R3 has a wonderful DTS track, exclusive to R3

Agreed. Its great.

Quote: As for CR not being violent enough..

Well its become quite common knowledge that the R1 DVD has been cut by around 20 seconds for violence. The UK DVD is slightly cut in the torture scene, but the R3 is the granddaddy with no cuts at all. Full fight scenes, full torture scene. And DTS. And all for under a tenner.

Can't help but feel disapointed with the transfer. It looked soft a lot of the time and displayed that horrid frozen grain pattern on some of the dark scenes (especially the long shot of the road and surrounding trees just before the car flip scene. It baffles me what was so taxing about authoring a 2 hour 20 min film without a dts soundtrack! very poor effort

Friggin' sweet movie. Wonderfully done, and I especially loved how composer David Arnold didn't use the classic 007 theme until the end shot and the credits that followed. Gotta add this soundtrack to my collection.

I am definitely intrigued with any James Bond film that successes this one so long as Craig is still involved.

Gabe Powers wrote: Hmmm. I guess I listen again when I have the chance. Maybe some discs are fawlty?

If I remember correctly even Brosnan publicly complained about the direction that the franchise was going and wanted a grittier, darker Bond. He put most of the blame on the producers, the Broccolis (sp?).

I don't have a fancy sound system, but mine played fine (to me anyways).

I bought it yesterday, I know that there is more than likely a double dip coming (which I won't buy regardless), but frankly, I can't say I regret buying it. It's easily one of the best Bond movies and re-watchable. I wanted to watch it again right away (damn work). And when I watch a classic one, it's a bit like, ok, not for awhile now... (at least a month or two).

Anyways, nice review Gabe, I agree with many points, especially that they could take Bond even further, though they won't. But it's something I'd love to see.

Oh, and I agree with your top 2 films, and would place "The Departed" third.

Glad to see it wasn't just my imagination about the sound level during the movie. I thought there was something wrong with my DVD player or my sound system. Somebody really screwed up royally with the mix on this one. It's either too loud or too soft. It's most noticeable during the opening song.

Really? I didn't have that problem, I thought it was pretty well balanced. I had it up pretty loud, but it seemed to have an overall limit. I suppose that if anything the music could've come down a notch. I suppose it all depends on the ears and the sound system.

Sorry, but I was prety disappointed with the sound mix. I had to really crank up my receiver to hear the voices at times, then the action was WAY too loud. The sound kept dropping out constantly thru the movie. Too loud one moment and the next too soft.

I made mention of Ireland because Brosnan is Irish. I actually am aware of the intricacies of the division of the region. And I still haven't heard of a Scot or Welsh reffering to themselves as a Brit. Anyone care to prove me wrong? Bodhi?

Bruno Billion wrote: Well, with the exception of the republic of Ireland (of course), English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish people are British citizen. Sort of, with Northern Ireland you can be British and/or Irish. To generalise, the more North and West you go from London, the more significant a person's national identity becomes, as opposed to the official British nationality - that will, more than likely, be the reason for Gabe's observation.

Bruno Billion wrote: Gabe Powers wrote: I guess I've just never heard someone from Wales, Ireland or Scotland refered to as British.

Well, with the exception of the republic of Ireland (of course), English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish people are British citizen.

It always makes me laugh when I see an American movie or sitcom refer to people speaking with a 'British' accent! Er... which one? Scottish, Irish, Welsh? Essex, Fenland, West Country, Birmingham, Liverpudlian, Mancunian???

I'm in the minority here. I need to see more of Craig to truly assess if he is the "best" Bond. Casino Royale was simply a good film in my opinion. Not great, just good. In my opinion, Connery is still the man. Sorry.

But we can agree to disagree, right? I will give Craig another chance come next Bond movie.

sure men..i don't know any Basc who calls himself Spenish ... but that is not the point...i think, as i posted before..that BOnd is Britihs, and non other non-british actor can play Bond..it just the thing that brits have...just like any other country has (it's own)

Quote: wish it hadn't taken so damn long for them to introduce Eva Green but still a fantastic movie. I prefered the 5.1 on the DVD as oppose to the theaters since it wasn't so bright and loud

Yeah, my girlfriend was actually covering her ears when we saw this in theaters.

malars wrote: No biggie, Gabe, but it's "hemorrhaging"...slight typo, but other than that, a good review! Blame that one on my editor. British spelling or something.

Quote: The first action sequence, a free running mini-epic, and easily the best directed and edited action scene of the year... With the exception of some scenes in Children of Men! Quote: Those were beyond action scenes, those were the actual plot in motion. I guess I was thinking of an action scene and the kind of thing that could go missing in a film. But you're right, and Children of Men was the best directed film of the year all together.

Quote: We're not filling in the back-story, we're building a new one here, and though the film ends as strong as any great film in recent memory, I'm not sure I care where this back-story will end up. This may be the only point of your review that I really don't agree with. I definitely think this is setting some backstory that we've never been told before or was briefly hinted at in previous installments. Despite it's drastic differences from previous Bond films, it's still part of the overall canon IMO! I don't think any of the Bond films really play into eachother, with the exception of a few of the Connery ones where villians made multiple appearances, but the next film in the Craig series might end up being the first direct continuation the series has ever seen.

No biggie, Gabe, but it's "hemorrhaging"...slight typo, but other than that, a good review!

Quote: Imagine a hard 'R' rated Bond, with cursing, more graphic bloodshed, and (Lord help us) nudity, in addition to turning its back on gadgets and fantasy excess. I don't think it's possible to go too far with a dark and realistic Bond myself. There is no line to be crossed, and I'd like to be taken to a place where the Sean Connery from From Russia with Love looks like a pussy. Maybe they'll push the envelope a little further with the next installment! Hmmm...Quote: The first action sequence, a free running mini-epic, and easily the best directed and edited action scene of the year... With the exception of some scenes in Children of Men! Quote: We're not filling in the back-story, we're building a new one here, and though the film ends as strong as any great film in recent memory, I'm not sure I care where this back-story will end up. This may be the only point of your review that I really don't agree with. I definitely think this is setting some backstory that we've never been told before or was briefly hinted at in previous installments. Despite it's drastic differences from previous Bond films, it's still part of the overall canon IMO!

Fisrt of all, i think u've done some nice job with the rev. i realy enjoyed reading it - although i think that Bond review should by made by real Bond fan (but maybe i'm wrong

Couple of thinks i dont entirely agree with You. - i saw CR only once, but from my point of view Craig is not totaly different from other Bonds...i mean i've seen resemblance to Connerys Bond - the samy behavior, same sence of humour, same attitude...in all i rank Connery and Craig the best Bonds. - i'm realy glad that Eric Bana didn't become double-o-seven....BOnd should be Britsh by all means...and with Lazenby we've learned that any other non-british actor just don't work. - oposit to You..i'm realy looking forword to next film...after all this is the bigest, world-wide-known, all time best series of this kind...for me it's like the legend that should never die....and with Casino Royale i'm more than happy seeing it back to the Flemings vision.

With the rest i humbly agree It was such a relief to see "Die Another Day" style go away....finaly we have BOnd as it should be..as it was at the begining, when Sir. Connery was JamesB...as Ian Fleming wrote it. Personaly i rank CR in top 5 BOnds..my favorite ones are "From Russia With Love", "Goldfinger", "Man With Golden Gun" and "Goldeneye"..and ofcourse "Casino Royale".

...o...and i think u realu should buy at least some of the other Bonds..the UEdistions are great

My God man! How can you even think of a thing like nudity? That's worse than all those other things combined! You should be ashamed sir! I'd rather see movies with bloody killings and violence and the likes than simply disgusting thing like nudity! Well, that and sex, what is wrong with people who think this is normal? I mean, only killing another human being is normal behaviour, get with it!

Wow reading the title confusion thing sent me in a laughing uproar. When my friends and I were discussing bond flicks we did the same exact thing several times. Bad choice to make films with such similar names so close to each other.

Bond Girls are Forever was produced for Die Another Day. Hence the inclusion of Halle Berry in it. At least the standalone copy of that I have has her in it. I got this as a first day sale incentive at Best Buy, I believe.

Wow...I'm even more excited to see this now. I bought it today for my dad for his birthday, so I will end up seeing this sometime this week.

Awesome review, Gabe. Long movies are great if they're good because you really get your money's worth. I never really did get into the Bond series of films, but have seen most of them, and, like you, wouldn't be able to tell them apart except by the actor who played Bond. Honestly, I couldn't stand the campiness and the over-the-top story lines. I have heard nothing but great things about this movie and will make it a point to see it by weekend's end.

And I was rooting for Clive Owen to get the role, though I liked another rumor: seeing a senior James Bond with the return of Sean Connery, LOL.

Umm...you keep saying Tomorrow Never Dies when you're clearly references Die Another Day (the final Brosnan Bond film). Tomorrow Never Dies was the one with Michelle Yoeh, Teri Hatcher, and Jonathan Pryce.